Citations

Background: Invasive management strategies for myocardial infarction (MI) and multivessel coronary artery disease (MV-CAD) include complete revascularization (successful revascularization of all coronary artery lesions or segments ≥1.5 mm in diameter with ≥50% diameter stenosis) and incomplete revascularization (including culprit-only revascularization). However, non-culprit lesion management strategy in elderly patients remains ambiguous due to a lack of representation of this cohort in randomized trials (RCTs) and higher cardiovascular complication risks. Methods: We performed a meta-analysis comparing clinical outcomes of elderly individuals (age ≥65 years) with MI and MV-CAD submitted to complete vs. incomplete (including culprit-only) percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). The outcomes of interest were all-cause death, cardiovascular mortality, recurrent MI, and any revascularization. Pooled odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated using a random-effects model. Results: Thirteen studies (3 RCTs, 1 post hoc analysis of previous RCT, and 9 observational studies) with a total of 12,289 patients were included. Complete revascularization (CR) was performed in 5,232 patients, while 7,057 patients underwent incomplete revascularization (IR). The mean age was 80.46 years for CR and 80.73 years for IR and the mean durations of follow-ups ranged from 12-78 months. As compared to IR, the CR group was associated with significantly lower risk of all-cause mortality (OR 0.59, 95% CI 0.49 to 0.71, p<0.0001) (Figure 1), cardiovascular mortality (OR 0.56, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.77, p=0.0005), recurrent MI (OR 0.62, 95% CI .47 to 0.81, p=0.0005) (Figure 2), and any revascularization (OR 0.47, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.86, p=0.01). Conclusion: Among elderly patients with MI and MV-CAD, CR is associated with a lower risk of all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, recurrent MI, and any revascularization.

Background: Ambiguity surrounds invasive management of non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTE-MI) in older adults (≥70 years), and the number of elderly patients undergoing invasive treatment in clinical practice remains relatively low. Data comparing the efficacy of invasive versus conservative medical management for NSTEMI in this population is conflicting due to the under-representation or exclusion of the older population from randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Methods: We performed a meta-analysis of RCTs to evaluate the long-term outcomes of invasive versus conservative medical strategies in older patients with NSTEMI. Random effects meta-analysis was conducted to estimate the odds ratio (OR) with 95% CI for the individual endpoints of all-cause mortality, cardiovascular (CV) mortality, recurrent myocardial infarction (MI), unplanned revascularization, and readmission for cardiovascular causes. Results: A total of nine RCTs with 4,336 patients (Invasive: 2,368; Control: 1,968) with median follow-ups ranging from 6-63.6 months were included. Compared with a conservative strategy, an invasive strategy was associated with a significantly decreased risk of recurrent MI (OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.47-0.81; p<0.001) (Figure 1) and unplanned revascularization (OR 0.38, 95% CI 0.25-0.56; p<0.001). There was no difference in all-cause mortality (OR 0.81, 95% CI 0.39-1.35; p=0.42) (Figure 2), CV mortality (OR 0.72, 95% CI 0.43-1.23; p=0.23), or readmission for cardiovascular causes (OR 1.21, 95% CI 0.63-2.33; p=0.57) between invasive and conservative management strategies. Conclusion: In older patients ≥70 years old with NSTE-MI, an invasive strategy reduced the risk of recurrent MI and revascularization when compared with conservative management. However invasive strategy did not offer any benefit in mortality or cardiac-cause related readmission over conservative management.

Abstract Background Long‐term outcomes of sterile lead management strategies of lead abandonment (LA) or transvenous lead extraction (TLE) remain unclear. Methods We performed a retrospective study of a population residing in southeastern Minnesota with follow‐up at the Mayo Clinic and its health systems. Patients who underwent LA or TLE of sterile leads from January 1, 2000, to January 1, 2011, and had follow‐up for at least 10 years or until their death were included. Results A total of 172 patients were included in the study with 153 patients who underwent LA and 19 who underwent TLE for sterile leads. Indications for subsequent lead extraction arose in 9.1% ( n = 14) of patients with initial LA and 5.3% ( n = 1) in patients with initial TLE, after an average of 7 years. Moreover, 28.6% of patients in the LA cohort who required subsequent extraction did not proceed with the extraction, and among those who proceeded, 60% had clinical success and 40% had a clinical failure. Subsequent device upgrades or revisions were performed in 18.3% of patients in the LA group and 31.6% in the TLE group, with no significant differences in procedural challenges (5.2% vs. 5.3%). There was no difference in 10‐year survival probability among the LA group and the TLE group ( p = .64). Conclusion An initial lead abandonment strategy was associated with more complicated subsequent extraction procedures compared to patients with an initial transvenous lead extraction strategy. However, there was no difference in 10‐year survival probability between both lead management approaches.

Background: Long-term outcomes of lead management strategies of lead abandonment (LA) or transvenous lead extraction (TLE) during cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIED) procedures requiring lead addition or replacement remain unclear. Hypothesis: We hypothesized that there is no difference in long-term (10-year) outcomes of LA versus TLE during CIED procedures requiring lead addition. Methods: We performed a retrospective cohort study of a population residing in seven adjacent counties of southeastern Minnesota with follow-up at the Mayo Clinic and its health systems. Patients who underwent LA or TLE for sterile leads from January 1, 2000, to January 1, 2011, and had follow-up for at least 10-years or until their death were included. Outcomes were identified through a detailed chart review of the electronic health record from within the Mayo Clinic system. Results: A total of 172 patients were included in the study with 153 patients who underwent LA and 19 who underwent TLE for sterile leads. In long-term follow-up, indications for subsequent lead extraction arose in 9.1% (n=14) of patients with initial LA and 5.3% (n=1) in patients with initial TLE, after an average of 7-years. Moreover, out of 14 patients, who required secondary extraction in the LA cohort, 28.6% did not proceed with the extraction. Of the remaining 10 patients, 60% had clinical success and 40% had a clinical failure with the extraction. Subsequent device upgrades or revisions were performed in 18.3% of patients in the LA group and 31.6% in the TLE group, with no significant differences in procedural challenges such as requiring balloon venoplasty or serial dilation (5.2% vs. 5.3%, P=1.0). There was no difference in 10-year survival probability among LA group and TLE group (P=0.64). Conclusion: Indications for subsequent extraction arose in 9.1% of patients with the initial LA approach for sterile leads after an average of 7.3 years and 28.6% did not proceed with the extraction. Of the patients who underwent the subsequent extraction, 60% had clinical success and 40% had a clinical failure. There was no difference in 10-year survival probability between patients with the initial LA approach or TLE approach.

AbstractBackgroundTransvenous lead extraction (TLE) is increasingly considered in cardiac implantable electronic device management. Heart failure (HF) might be associated with mortality risks after the TLE procedure. This study aims to assess mortality risk in HF patients undergoing TLE.MethodWe searched MEDLINE and Embase databases from inception to June 2022 to identify articles that included patients with and without HF who underwent TLE, which reported mortality in both groups. The pooled effect size was calculated with a random‐effects model and 95% CI to compare post‐TLE mortality between the two groups.ResultsEleven studies were included in the analysis. Each left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) increased by 1% was associated with reduced mortality by 2% (HR = 0.98, 95% CI: 0.97–0.99, I2 = 74.9%, p < .01). The presence of HF compared to those without HF was associated with higher mortality rates (OR: 3.04, 95% CI: 2.56–3.61, I2 = 0.0%, p < .531). There was a significant increase in the mortality rates in patients with New York Heart Association (NYHA) function class III (OR: 2.29, 95% CI: 1.29–4.06, I2 = 0.0%, p = .498) and NYHA IV (OR: 8.5, 95% CI: 2.98–24.3, I2 = 0.0%, p = .997).ConclusionsOur study found that post‐TLE mortality decreases by 2% as LVEF increases by 1%, also mortality is higher in patients with NYHA III and IV.

AbstractBackgroundThe impact of chronic kidney disease (CKD) or end‐stage renal disease (ESRD) on patients receiving transvenous lead extraction (TLE) is not well‐established. We performed a systematic review and meta‐analysis to explore the association between CKD and all‐cause mortality in TLE.MethodsWe searched the databases of PubMed and EMBASE from inception to April 2022. Included studies were published TLE studies that compared the risk of mortality in CKD patients compared to control patients. Data from each study were combined using the random‐effects model.ResultsEight studies (5,013 patients) were included. Compared with controls, CKD patients had a significantly higher risk of overall all‐cause mortality (hazard ratio [HR] = 2.14, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.65–2.77, I2 = 51.1%, p < .001). The risk of overall all‐cause mortality increased with the severity of CKD for nonspecific CKD (HR = 2.01, 95% CI: 1.49–2.69, I2 = 53.4, p < .001) and ESRD (HR = 2.79, 95% CI: 1.85–4.23, I2 = 0%, p < .001). The risk of all‐cause mortality in CKD is double at follow‐up ≤1 year (HR = 1.99, 95% CI: 1.29–3.09, I2 = 50.9%, p = .002) and higher at follow‐up >1 year (HR = 2.36, 95% CI: 1.63–3.42, I2 = 59.7%, p < .001).ConclusionsOur meta‐analysis demonstrates a significantly increased risk of overall all‐cause mortality in patients with CKD who underwent TLE compared to controls.